1 / 22

Charles R. Real and Anthony F. Shakal California Geological Survey

Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area: “Blind” Test of Predicted Ground Response of a Shallow Stiff-Soil Site to the September 28, 2004 M6.0 Parkfield Earthquake. Charles R. Real and Anthony F. Shakal California Geological Survey. Hypothesis. Model. Supposition. Specific Case. Validation.

zahi
Download Presentation

Charles R. Real and Anthony F. Shakal California Geological Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area: “Blind” Test of Predicted Ground Response of a Shallow Stiff-Soil Site to the September 28, 2004 M6.0 Parkfield Earthquake Charles R. Real and Anthony F. Shakal California Geological Survey

  2. Hypothesis Model Supposition Specific Case Validation Observation Measurement Experimentation Need to Validate Ground Motion Prediction Models Theory Toward Knowledge Data

  3. Background • 1985 IASPEI/IAEE Resolution to: • Promote establishment of test sites around world to validate methods of predicting “effects of surface geology on seismic motion” • Form Joint Working Group to provide guidance for establishing test sites • 1986 CGS/CSMIP established test site at Turkey Flat near Parkfield, CA

  4. “Blind” Test Approach • Conduct high quality field and laboratory tests to characterize the geotechnical properties of the site • Collect high-quality measurements of ground response in sediment basin and bordering rock • Distribute only rock records and request predictions at basin recording sites • Release observed basin recordings of and compare with predictions

  5. Turkey Flat Site Effects Test Area

  6. Experiment Timeline

  7. Field Tests

  8. Lab Tests

  9. Seismic Reflection & Refraction Surveys

  10. A’ R2 V2 C C’ V1, D2, D3 B’ R1, D1 A B Turkey Flat Site Effects Test Area Next slide shows profiles

  11. Geologic Structure

  12. Accelerographs Installed Weak-motion Data Collection Experiment Timeline

  13. Weak Motion Test Country/ParticipantsStandardPreferred Canada (1) 1 1 China (2) 2 Czechoslovakia (2) 2 France (4) 3 1 Germany (1) 1 Italy (3) 1 1 Japan (13) 7 2 Mexico (1) 1 New Zealand (1) 1 USA (13)61 Totals 41 6

  14. New Experiment Timeline

  15. R2 V1 V2 R1 D2 D1 D3 Required Strong-Motion Predictions • Fourier Amplitude Spectral Ratios: • 1) Xi/R1 given R1 (where Xi means D1, D2, D3, V1,V2, R2) • 2) V1/D3, D2/D3 given D3 Two-step process: R1 predictions (4 months) Then: D3 predictions (3 months)

  16. R2 V1 V2 R1 D2 D1 D3 Required Strong-Motion Predictions • Acceleration Time Histories: • (1) V1, D2, D3 given R1 • (2) V1, D2 given D3

  17. R2 V1 V2 R1 D2 D1 D3 Required Strong-Motion Predictions • Psuedovelocity Response Spectra (5% damped) & peak values displ, vel, accel: • 1) Xi given R1 (where Xi means D1, D2, D3, V1,V2, R2) • 2) V1, D2 given D3

  18. Terms/Conditions • Predictions are voluntary and at own expense • Required predictions must be complete as requested, and carried out using a “preferred” geotechnical model developed from data provided • All predictions must include estimates of uncertainty • Individuals/groups shall remain anonymous when evaluating/comparing prediction results

  19. Optional Predictions (encouraged) • Full required set as described, but using the “standard” geotechnical model • Time histories for V2, R2 given R1 for “preferred” geotechnical model • Time histories for V2, R2 given R1 for “standard” geotechnical model • Compute vertical components for all predictions

  20. SM Prediction Timeline • Announcement of test 12/2004 • Given-R1 predictions due 9/2005 • Given-D3 prediction begins 10/2005 • Given-D3 predictions due 11/2005 • Workshop Spring 2006

  21. Workshop Timeline

  22. Turkey Flat Working Group Stay Tuned…….. www.quake.ca.gov/Parkfield_2004

More Related